Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Breaching America, Part III: Stuck in the middle



Web Posted: 05/21/2007 11:19 PM CDT

Todd Bensman
San Antonio Express-News

Third part of a four-part series

TAPACHULA, Mexico — The bus braked abruptly and lurched to a stop.

Aamr Bahnan Boles felt his stomach clench as the front door swung open and three uniformed officers boarded, looking none too happy. They had set up a makeshift checkpoint on the highway to this border city in Mexico's southernmost state, Chiapas.

"Documentos! Ahora!" one of the uniformed men barked. " Todo el mundo!"

Like almost every other passenger aboard the bus, Boles was a foreigner simply passing through Mexico. But in one way he stood out. An Iraqi, he was the only Middle Easterner on the bus.

Boles was just one of thousands of U.S.-bound immigrants who are have journeyed from 43 mostly Islamic "countries of interest," where known terrorist groups operate and can presumably deploy infiltrators. Since 9-11, counterterrorism authorities have given this tiny group the label "special-interest aliens," which triggers a set of security measures reserved just for them. Their ranks have included a number of reputed terrorists.

Boles was a 25-year-old Iraqi war refugee who had fled to Syria, where he had tapped into a smuggling network that enabled him to fly on his own from Damascus to Moscow and then to Guatemala on a tourist visa he'd bought for $750.

After eight months in Guatemala, a different smuggler had gotten him over the Mexican border. In his final push to America, Boles was about to find out that Americans aren't the only ones who single out Middle Easterners as potential terrorists.

Boles had been traveling for more than two hours since crossing into Mexico from Guatemala. The smuggler had walked his group of mostly Central Americans over the border near the scrubby highland town of La Mesilla. He'd caught the bus on the other side, in Ciudad Cuauhtémoc.

Boles had heard horror stories, true or not, about corrupt immigration officers in both countries who prey on people moving north.

He thought of the $3,000 he kept hidden and how it figured into his plan to hire a smuggler in Mexico. He had been guarding the little bundle with his life since leaving Syria; his entire future depended on it to get him through Mexico.

Now, having been stopped at a highway checkpoint by zealous men in uniform, he feared the worst.

The police asked those aboard the bus to produce travel documents and state their nationality. From some of the foreigners they demanded cash. Boles watched as the money disappeared into the pockets of the uniformed men.

He decided to try lying. With his dark features, Boles hoped he might pass for a Guatemalan. The officers approached.

"Dónde está sus papeles?" Where are your papers?

"I don't have any," Boles replied, using Spanish he'd picked up in Guatemala.

"What country are you from?" the officer asked, eyeing him hard now.

"Guatemala. I am a Guatemalan."

"How much money are you illegally transporting through Mexico?" the officer asked, now clearly skeptical. "Let me see it."

"I have nothing," Boles said. "Banditos robbed me at the border. They beat me and took my money."

"Get out!" the officer ordered, grabbing his arm and pulling.

Outside, two more officers joined the mix.

"You don't sound like you're from Guatemala," the first said to Boles, who now stood surrounded. "I'll ask you one last time: Where are you from?"

Boles saw no way out.

"OK, OK," he said. "I am an Arab from Iraq. I'm an Iraqi."

The confession had an almost miraculous effect. All hostility suddenly melted away. The officers escorted Boles to a spot away from the other offloaded immigrants. The officers huddled among themselves, talking. Occasionally they glanced over at Boles.

A few minutes later, one of them politely escorted him to a black pickup and instructed him to climb in the back. The officer then drove him into Tapachula and delivered him to a detention center run by Mexico's National Institute of Migration.

The detention center, a few miles from the city's center, is gleaming new construction, painted an unintimidating mauve and white, with no sign of barbed wire. It's surrounded by high walls and 10-foot-tall metal gates. Large air-conditioned buses rumble in and out delivering or picking up human payloads.

Most of those inside are from Latin America, especially Ecuadoreans, Cubans and Peruvians who live too far away to be easily deported.

But Boles was taken past them to a special block. He was stunned. All of his new cellmates were travel-weary Yemenis, Tunisians, Pakistanis and Iraqis.

He had become ensnared in the outer edge of a largely unknown American security net, spun out of fear and perhaps a necessary presumption that Boles and his new cellmates might well be terrorists bent on infiltrating the U.S.

But Boles also was in the clutches of another country's rarely discussed security preoccupation. Mexico's fear that an attack on the U.S. might originate on its soil had elevated counterterrorism to a top Mexico priority and produced one of the most closely intertwined partnerships in the American war on terror, particularly on the question of special-interest immigrants.

Within a week, Boles and his cellmates would be transported to a bigger detention center in Mexico City, their van flanked by a Mexican security detail, including intelligence officers.

One day, three well-dressed visitors, two women and a man, were let inside to see Boles. He was told they were Americans from the U.S. Embassy, and the Mexican government had allowed them inside to question him.

Mexico's most unwanted

After 9-11, the U.S. government immediately began urging Mexico to help stop so-called "special-interest aliens" who had moved virtually unmolested through its territory.

Despite public disagreements over illegal immigration by Mexico's own citizens, the U.S. found a more than eager partner in efforts to stop this one category of migrants from getting to the U.S. border. The main motivation: keeping the billions coming from Mexicans working in the U.S.

Before and after 9-11, top Mexican officials were quoted as saying they believe terror networks had long operated inside Mexico. For example, in May 2001, Mexican national security adviser Adolfo Aguilar Zinser told the BBC that "Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge. ... In light of this situation, there are continuing investigations aimed at dismantling these groups so that they may not cause problems in the country."

In January 2002, the Monterrey-based El Norte newspaper quoted National Institute of Migration official Felipe Urbiola Ledezma as saying that "six or seven" known terrorist organizations were operating inside Mexico.

"We have in Mexico people linked to terrorism and we are constantly observing unusual immigration flows ... people connected to ETA, Hezbollah and even some with links to Osama Bin Laden," he told reporters.

Mexican officials have since toned down such talk. In the years since 9-11, Mexico has steadily escalated its cooperation with American authorities on terrorism-related programs. The country has prosecuted smugglers who specialized in moving Middle Easterners, taken steps to guard against corruption in its Middle East-based consulate offices, opened its own terrorism investigations, and passed laws cracking down on suspected terrorist money-laundering operations.

A newly released U.S. State Department Country Report on Mexico's level of counterterrorism cooperation during 2006, effusive with praise, makes special note of the country's work diminishing the primary perceived threat there: "terrorist transit and the smuggling of aliens who may raise terrorism concerns."

"Our bilateral efforts focused squarely on minimizing that threat," the report stated.

Mexico's ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, described what Mexico's interest is: The presumed American reaction to any terror attack from Mexican territory would be abrupt and radical border restrictions, which could catastrophically disrupt the $25 billion in annual remittances that Mexican workers in the U.S. send home and upon which Mexico's struggling economy has come to depend.

"The day that happens," Sarukhan said of a terrorist infiltrator who attacks from Mexican soil, "this relationship is over as we know it. Everything. So it behooves my country to ensure that that border is not used as a potential staging ground for terrorist penetration or attack to U.S. soil. Mechanisms put in place by agencies on both sides of the border are providing the results."

One mechanism, according to government sources in both countries, is a discreet system by which immigration enforcement agencies throughout Mexico, especially at airports, target special-interest immigrants for detention and investigation.

Two American agents with Mexico experience said the U.S. provides the Mexican military with resources for soldiers to set up roadblocks along established land routes close to the American southern border and pluck Middle Eastern immigrants out of the flow.

"Mexico is busting their ass to cooperate on this," said one federal agent knowledgeable about the programs. "It's a big deal."

One particular practice helps illustrate just how close the cooperation is.

Mexico, for the past several years, has allowed American interrogators into its detention facilities to directly question special-interest detainees.

The "threat assessment" interviews, typically conducted by Mexico City-stationed U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agents, occur in the presence of their Mexican counterparts, according to two federal sources familiar with the procedure.

The Americans do not interview every captured special-interest immigrant; they don't have the personnel, according to one of them.

Instead, the agreement is for Mexican intelligence officers from the National Security and Investigation Center to conduct as many interviews as possible while American agents check terror watch lists and fingerprint databases for them.

American agents can later pick and choose whom they want to investigate themselves, but far from all are.

Sarukhan, not commenting specifically on any particular joint practice, acknowledged that his country routinely relies on the American counterterrorism apparatus in its own ongoing effort to ensure the U.S. is not attacked from Mexico.

"We are obviously receiving intelligence. Mexico is not a player on its own," he said. "We need that information provided to us by other nations that are monitoring the activities of some of these groups in other parts of the world."

In Tapachula, a ranking member of the National Institute of Migration, or INM, in the state of Chiapas, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to grant media interviews, said most Arab immigrants, once they cross from Guatemala by land, typically fly rather than cover the dangerous 1,000-mile journey to America by land or rail.

"You'll almost never find an Arab person walking," the official said.

That makes things easier for the INM. Many Arab immigrants arrive with money for air passage north. The INM looks for them and regularly catches Jordanians, Egyptians and North Africans at airports in Tapachula and Tuxla, the INM official said.

He said his country's intelligence agency "checks on them to see if they're dangerous." Asked if he'd heard whether any were, he responded: "That information is confidential."

Not all who have used Mexico to cross into the U.S. have been economic migrants. One of them was Detroit resident Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, a Lebanese national later convicted in Michigan of raising money and recruiting for the terror group Hezbollah.

Federal court records say Kourani was a ranking Hezbollah insider who received "specialized training in radical Shiite fundamentalism, weaponry, spy craft and counterintelligence in Lebanon and Iran." The government described his brother as "Hezbollah's Chief of Military Security for Southern Lebanon" who sent Kourani to infiltrate the U.S.

American prosecutors say he got into Mexico in 2001 by obtaining a Mexican visa by paying a $3,000 bribe at the Mexican Consulate in Beirut, then was smuggled over the California border in the trunk of a smuggler's car.

But Kourani was never caught in Mexico.

American agents familiar with the joint system of vetting special-interest immigrants who are caught in Mexico concede the system is far from foolproof in discerning a terrorist from an economic migrant.

One reason is the FBI has fielded fewer than a dozen full-time agents to Mexico City, and they cannot possibly interview every special-interest immigrant captured there, an official said. Also, the right interpreters are in short supply.

Another problem is that many of those captured have fake papers or no identification, and the names they provide with no verification get run through terror watch lists.

"The bottom line is just because you don't get a hit doesn't mean he's not a terrorist," the federal agent with Mexico experience said. "You still could be. Fake names are a big problem. I think one of these days something bad is going to happen, and it's going to have a Mexican signature."

Senior FBI officials in Washington, D.C., did not respond to phone and e-mail requests to comment about this series.

After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, as an insurgency against American troops was gaining traction, American agents in Mexico stamped the highest priority on investigating all captured Iraqi immigrants, two sources said.

It was against the backdrop of the war in Iraq and the broad cooperative counterterrorism effort in Mexico that American agents found their way to interview Boles.

Boles is interrogated

Before the Americans got to him, Mexican agents of the National Security and Investigation Center paid Boles a visit in Tapachula first.

The Mexican intelligence officers wanted to know all about Boles. He explained that he was an Iraqi Christian who had fled religious persecution by first going to Syria, and that he was on his way to America to join relatives in Detroit.

The Mexican agents seemed particularly interested in knowing if he did any fighting in the Iraq war and about his time in Syria. The interview was brief.

But Boles was not finished answering questions.

Some days later, Boles was placed in a van with some other Middle Easterners for what would be a road trip lasting nearly 20 hours to Mexico City and another detention facility there. Again his cellmates were Jordanians, Pakistanis and Tunisians.

Not long after, the guards came for him again.

Boles was taken to a well-lit interrogation room fitted with a table, some chairs and a telephone. He faced three interrogators. To the side, a Mexican agent stood throughout the proceedings, observing but not participating.

The telephone was off its hook, its loudspeaker function on. A female Arabic-speaking interpreter was holding. The Americans were polite.

They explained that they had come only to help him and that, essentially, the truth would set him free. He explained once again that his Christian family had been victims of persecution by Muslim extremists.

They asked Boles why he had come to Mexico, how he had gotten there and where he wanted to go.

"I want to go to America. I have an uncle in Detroit. All I want to do is go to America."

As the hours ticked by, the questions got more specific about names, places and dates related to his time in Iraq and Syria. The Americans scribbled in their notebooks.

Had he served in the Iraqi military? Boles said he had served a compulsory stint. What weapons training had Boles received? Boles said he received the usual but was certainly no fighter. The Americans took more notes.

The questioning then turned again to Syria.

They asked Boles point-blank if he was a member of a terrorist organization that ran a training camp in the Syrian port town of Latakia. According to some press reports, the reputed camp processes foreign fighters on their way to combat American troops in Iraq.

Had Boles ever been to Latakia? What did he know about the terrorist organization that ran it?

Boles insisted he knew nothing about any training camp in Latakia.

After about three hours, the Americans seemed satisfied. But Boles had no travel documents or any other direct evidence of the story he'd given. The Mexicans would hang on to Boles for nearly three more months, possibly to buy the Americans more time to check the story.

Not all of Boles' cellmates had to wait that long.

One goes to Gitmo

A variety of fates await special-interest immigrants in Mexico, following investigations of them, often based on recommendations from American agents.

According to Mexican and American sources familiar with the process, those who arouse suspicion are simply deported to their home countries. Boles noticed this as, one by one, his cellmates disappeared.

Information is sketchy about what happens when a special-interest immigrant caught in Mexico arouses greater suspicion.

But at least one U.S.-bound Pakistani captured in Mexico apparently ended up testifying before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The partial story of the Pakistani is revealed in a heavily redacted hearing transcript that was one of thousands the government was forced to release on a Web site after an Associated Press Freedom of Information lawsuit in May 2005.

One of the government's allegations was that the Pakistani had close business ties to "an individual known to help coordinate smuggling operations for members of Hezbollah and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya," an Egypt-based group.

The prisoner denied knowing about any such smuggling operations and insisted he was merely an economic migrant.

"Yes, I did try to be smuggled into the United States. I was going to find a job to make some money," the prisoner told the tribunal.

The Pakistani detainee testified that he had taken a plane from Pakistan to Guatemala, and "from there I traveled by foot and vehicle to Mexico." He recalled crossing some rivers but not much more.

He acknowledged a smuggler helped arrange the journey from Pakistan eight months before his capture on a promise to pay about $18,000 worth of rupees.

"This would get paid when I got to the United States. My father owns a tanker (oil truck), which he would sell to make the payment."

It's unknown whether the man remains in detention.

When a detainee arouses deep suspicions, questioning is taken to another level.

A federal source said that at times the Americans have arranged to fly such detainees to their home countries, if cooperative, for intelligence services there to interrogate them. The results get reported back to the United States.

These situations fall short of "rendition," a recently criticized practice in which American intelligence agents have flown suspects to third countries where they could conduct the interrogations themselves with little accountability, the agent cautioned.

The San Antonio Express-News has been unable to independently corroborate the practice. The FBI did not respond to a query about it.

Some special-interest immigrants who raise no red flags while in Mexican custody are simply released with papers instructing them to leave the country within two weeks.

Boles and two fellow Iraqis he befriended while in jail evidently fell into this category.

After 90 days in detention, Boles and his two compatriots were only too happy to leave the country as ordered. They headed for the Rio Grande and, just beyond its placid brownish-green waters, the Promised Land.

But the long journey of Aamr Bahnan Boles was far from over.


tbensman@express-news.net
News Researcher Julie Domel contributed to this report.

Breaching America, Part II: The Latin connection


Web Posted: 05/21/2007 02:41 PM CDT

Todd Bensman
San Antonio Express-News

Second part of a four-part series

GUATEMALA CITY — Banking low and hard, the Cubana Airlines jet punched below the heavy cloud cover on its final descent into La Aurora International Airport, revealing to passengers a strange jumble of urban sprawl and jutting black volcanoes.

Aamr Bahnan Boles was exhausted and drowsy from three days of international air travel and layovers, but adrenaline mixed with dread jolted him awake. He looked out the window at the alien landscape below.

Boles was 24. The farthest he had traveled from his home near Mosul in Iraq was to Damascus, Syria, a couple hundred miles away, where he'd taken refuge in early 2004 along with hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis fleeing the war.

He was acutely aware of how alone he was.

He could speak barely a lick of Spanish.

Soon Boles would find out whether he would be thrown into some dank Guatemalan detention cell and then deported to Syria or remain free to pursue the bright dream that had driven him this far: escaping the war and starting a new life in America.

Boles has plenty of company in the human pipeline that traverses the seas, spans continents and winds its way to the U.S. boundary. Boles and other so-called "special-interest aliens" from Iraq and 42 other countries where terrorist groups operate are automatically deemed security risks when they steal across the border.

Though most are economic migrants, the prospect that their ranks might include a terrorist infiltrator preoccupies American authorities whose job it is to distinguish between the two and prevent another attack.

Boles' journey to America followed a roundabout route designed to take him through countries adversarial or indifferent to concerns about U.S. national security.

His travels — which would consume almost one year of his life, land him in jail and literally test his Christian faith — began in earnest when he paid a man in Damascus $750 to secure a Guatemala tourist visa, supposedly from a consulate office in Amman, Jordan. Boles took a stranger's word that it was legitimate. Would Guatemalan customs officials accept an Iraqi passport and a Guatemala tourist visa without question?

Because of so much uncertainty, America was still more dream than destination for Boles on the summer day he boarded a plane at the Damascus airport.

The Syrian capital's main airport, with its Damascene-patterned exterior of interlocking eight-point stars, is dingy and small — an unlikely place, it might seem, for high hopes or dream destinations in the west. It has only 14 gates, aging interior pillars of chipped dirty tile and floors with filthy grout work. Veiled women pull luggage on wheels, and robed men swoosh toward late flights.

From here, Syrian Airlines flies to Moscow twice a week.

On a June day in 2005, Boles boarded a plane to Moscow. Then, after a short connection, he made the 13-hour flight to Havana, another common steppingstone on the road to America. There he spent a fitful night in a cheap hotel before catching a connecting flight the next day to Guatemala City.

Officials along the way waved him through without interest. But now Boles' heart pounded as he disembarked and took his place in the "foreigners" line at customs in Guatemala City.

An officer in a light-blue uniform with epaulets on both shoulders sat behind a glass-encased station, two disinterested unarmed officers standing on either side. Jet fumes permeated the utilitarian building, hardly made more cheerful by the discolored, framed tourist posters of volcanoes and smiling Mayan villagers.

When it was Boles' turn, the humorless officer flipped through his Iraqi passport with its Arabic lettering, every page blank except for stamps from Syria and Cuba. The customs official added his stamp and waved Boles through.

Relief washed over Boles. He was on the same continent as America. If all went well, he told himself, he'd soon be eating and drinking with relatives in Sterling Heights, Mich. He didn't have much of a plan, though, and only about $2,000 left of the $5,000 stake his father had given him. He changed some of it to Guatemalan quetzals.

Carrying his suitcase, he let a cabdriver fish him out of the crowd and used the only Spanish he knew.

"Zona Una, por favor. Zona Una," Boles told the cabdriver. " Hotel, por favor. Hotel."

Boles had been told in Damascus that Zone 1, Guatemala City's central market district, was where he would find hundreds of Arab merchants who speak Arabic. Maybe they could help him find a smuggler.

He may not have known it at the time, but Boles would soon learn he had come to exactly the right country for that.

More than geography

Guatemala is a pivotal stop along the serpentine routes where American law enforcement has tried to intercept special-interest immigrants. Immigrants from all parts of the world find it a virtually unpoliced superhighway, where local Arabs and corrupt border officials help people like Boles move under the radar, camouflaged in the multitudes.

The U.S. State Department singles out Guatemala as one of the world's busiest transshipment nations for undocumented immigrants of every nationality, mostly South and Central Americans. Special-interest immigrants from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia blend in easily among them, moving inexorably north.

One reason is simple geography. South of Guatemala are the South American and Central American countries where many special-interest immigrants first arrive and prepare for the final push north.

To the north of Guatemala is Mexico and America's southern border. So virtually everyone on the way to the U.S. by land is eventually funneled through Guatemala. But, like other Latin American countries, Guatemala offers more than just geography.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Ingersoll has prosecuted several major smugglers who have brought hundreds of Middle Eastern clients across U.S. borders. She said Guatemala offers "relative ease of entry, a hospitable Arab immigrant community that provides safe temporary haven, and it has operating within it individuals who are tied into illegal-immigrant smuggling business."

U.S. homeland security agencies are well aware of Guatemala's key location and have quietly sought to cripple the flow with undercover enforcement operations. But the impact on the tenacious industry, allowed to flourish by a lax central government, is questionable.

U.S.-led enforcement operations in the country began targeting smuggling rings here in the 1990s, mainly networks that trafficked in women and children, all victims of sexual exploitation, when that was a priority.

After 9-11, U.S. immigration agents in Guatemala shifted gears. In undercover operations targeting smugglers of people from Islamic countries, they have quietly logged the captures of dozens of Iraqis, Jordanians and others, according to federal officials familiar with the operations. But these apprehensions appear to have been episodic at best. The smuggling industry is vast, entrenched, flexible and politically connected.

Records from the resulting U.S. prosecutions of smugglers show they have moved hundreds, if not thousands, of special-interest immigrants over routes that snake in and out of Guatemala — by land, air and sea.

The routes are served by a nationwide infrastructure of safe houses, private residences, hotels, bus fleets and ship owners, according to investigation records. Nearly everyone along the way earns a cut, not the least local police and immigration officers with every motivation to keep the traffic — and money — flowing.

Gustavo Barreno, who served from 1997 through 2005 as a federal prosecutor in charge of enforcing his country's human trafficking laws, called smuggling "the No. 1 cash industry for government officials in Guatemala."

"The business is gigantic. You have no idea," he said. "Everyone is involved — everyone. And for Arabs to come into Guatemala it's really easy — really easy."

Barreno described the details of a long-standing joint operation between his small office of prosecutors and American authorities. The operations involved the use of American satellites, Coast Guard cutters, the U.S. Navy and the intelligence services of various South American governments, according to several American law enforcement sources.

Not long after 9-11, Barreno remembers, an alert arrived in his office from U.S. authorities to be on the lookout for "people with Arabic features." A stream of "wanted" posters featuring suspected terrorists began appearing after that.

Barreno's men did find Middle Eastern and Muslim immigrants heading for the U.S.

"When one was discovered, I would detain them," Barreno said. "They were always turned over to the Americans."

It's not known what the American authorities did with such detainees.

Ironically, controversy over a group of Jordanians would lead to the joint program being shut down, Barreno said, which illustrates one reason American efforts in Guatemala remain an uphill slog. One day in early 2005, U.S. and Ecuadorean intelligence officers alerted Barreno to the expected arrival in Guatemala of two wanted Jordanians.

After the safe houses were uncovered and the Jordanians arrested, the investigation turned up links between senior government officials and the smuggling ring, he said. Constant interference in the case eventually led to Barreno's ouster and cancellation of the American program, he said.

His story about his departure could not be independently verified. And it's unclear what operations the U.S. is conducting in Guatemala now. Senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in Washington, D.C., did not respond to queries for this report.

But today, Barreno said, ICE is no longer infiltrating smuggling operations in Guatemala, and the money and the immigrants are flowing like never before.

Agents on the take

The U.S. government apparently hasn't given up.

Santos Cuc Morales, Guatemala's national director of migration, told a story that helps illustrate another reason Guatemala's human trafficking business seems impervious to U.S. desires.

In February, Morales said, American Embassy officials approached him and asked whether his immigration officers could stop Iraqis "because of terrorism and the situation in Iraq."

The Americans provided intelligence, including lists of stolen passport numbers, and they offered training and money to Morales' immigration agents. But Morales said he couldn't help the Americans with their war on terror.

Most of his 450 agents stationed along the nation's borders and at airports and seaports are on the take from smuggling organizations, he said.

The majority of his own officers simply won't respond to his orders. Furthermore, powerful government bureaucrats Morales wouldn't name but who wield influence over his department don't want the smuggling stopped because they have stakes in the business. With a shrug, Guatemala's top immigration enforcement official said he wishes he could help the Americans avert another terrorist attack.

"I hope that doesn't happen. It would be terrible, but it could happen because of the corruption here," Morales said. "It's the reality of things."

The overarching problem is just how entrenched and dynamic the smuggling industry here is. Smugglers have grown wealthy from the proceeds, living openly in luxurious mansions in impoverished rural towns.

When smugglers who specialize in Middle Eastern clients have been arrested, their shoes were quickly filled. Networks of smugglers who operate to the north and south of Guatemala cooperate with one another inside the country, handing off clients and cash like relay racers pass batons. And they can be creative.

Before he was arrested on a U.S. indictment in 2004, Iranian national Maher Wazzen Jarad ran one of the largest South America-based smuggling operations and used Guatemala as a bridge to the U.S. One route Jarad offered Iraqis and other Middle Easterners was by sea.

Ships in Ecuador would carry Jarad's clients north to points off the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Then, speedboats run by a local network would race out from Guatemalan beaches and pick up Jarad's clients for the land journey into Mexico. A third network in Mexico would guide them over the Texas border.

One of many Ecuadorean ships halted by American authorities in Jarad's 2003 operation was the Esperanza. Of 137 paying passengers found aboard, 26 were Iraqis headed for America.

Government officials say other smugglers now handle Jarad's business. The ocean route from South America is still busy.

"Like water, it will find the nooks and crannies in your roof and make its way into your house," said Ingersoll, the prosecutor who helped imprison Jarad.

But not everyone can afford the services of a smuggler. People of limited means, like Boles, for instance, must bide their time in Guatemala, save some money and shop carefully for what they can afford.

For them, an inexpensive kind of help is available, from Arab communities in Latin America. No questions asked.

Lining up a smuggler

When Boles walked out of his hotel, the frenetic central marketplace of Zone 1 assaulted him. Throngs of shoppers plied the hundreds of tiny shops crammed in side by side like mismatched dominoes along broken traffic-clogged avenues. The atmosphere was tropical, not what he was used to in his arid native land.

Overcrowded red "chicken buses," ubiquitous in this country, roared by at decibels that made him flinch, spewing black clouds that bathed pedestrians and street hawkers shouting deals in Spanish. Boles had a vague notion of what he was looking for.

Within an hour, he noticed he had happened into a section of the marketplace that projected a foreign cultural flavor. Some of the shops sported names such as "Rio Jordan," "The Egyptian" and "Haifa." He went into one. The shopkeeper spoke Arabic.

Within a couple of days, Boles had a job, in a shop called Los Amigos, selling cheap electronics. His boss was a descendant of Palestinian Arab settlers named Hussein. They belonged to a community of some 3,000 Arabic-speaking Guatemalans of Jordanian, Palestinian and Syrian descent that had settled since the 1930s.

Many work as merchants in Zone 1. There are enough Muslims among them to be served by two mosques in Guatemala City. The merchants and their Arab employees do not particularly stand out as different at first glance.

Reflections of their cultural heritage, though, become evident in back offices and behind cash registers. Here, the sweet scent of tobacco smoke from traditional shisha water pipes permeates the air. Art works with Arabic lettering hang on office walls, and prayer rugs are stored.

Boles would settle in for much longer than he had anticipated. He had no choice.

After Boles asked around, the rest of the trip to the U.S. — a 900-mile trek over two borders — looked daunting. There were warnings of vicious machine-gun-toting gangs of bandits who preyed on the steady columns of immigrants. The bodies of their victims were turning up on both sides. Corrupt police and troops were said to be not much better. They would jail you or have you deported unless you paid them off.

Boles didn't dare cross into Mexico alone. He would need a smuggler who knew the lay of the land. Not long after his arrival, his new friends put him in touch with a number of such people. None was willing to guide him to the U.S. for less than $5,000.

He would end up living in Guatemala City for the next eight months, five months past the expiration of his tourist visa. But no official would ever bother him about it. Staying worked in Boles' favor. He'd be able to preserve and add to his remaining $2,000 and find the right smuggling connection. He'd also learn some Spanish.

His life was austere. He lived in a small rundown apartment in Zone 7, a few miles from his job, which he could reach by riding the chicken buses.

To keep expenses down, he subsisted on common street food, which was cheap, if alien, to him: tortillas with chicken or beef, and lots of black beans. He worked at Los Amigos every day, picking up a few words of Spanish here and there. Over time, he learned some rudimentary sentences and pleasantries.

As he did in Damascus, Boles largely kept his own counsel in Guatemala City. Boles, a Chaldean Christian, which is a persecuted minority in Iraq, had no particular desire to attend church. It wouldn't have done much good anyway; he wouldn't have understood the Spanish-language services.

He made acquaintances among the mostly Muslim Arabs in Zone 1 who spoke his language. Without that connection, he would have had a rough time making it. It turns out that many immigrants like Boles find aid in Arab communities all over Latin America, some of which have spawned smuggling operations. Guatemala City was no different.

But real friendship wasn't in the cards. The cultural divide between Arab Christians and Muslims extends a long way.

On Jan. 2, 2006, Boles turned 25 — far from home, friends and family.

He had a month left in Guatemala.

Other aspiring immigrants

On a recent day inside a Zone 1 shop, amid cheap knockoff purses and watches, a young Syrian Christian man stood vigil over the merchandise, a gold cross hanging from his neck. He didn't speak Spanish, having just arrived from Damascus weeks earlier.

Ibrahim Dahang explained through a local interpreter that it had been no problem for him to fly on a Guatemala visitor's visa obtained in Jordan to Paris and then into Guatemala City, where he picked up a job in Zone 1 from a fellow Syrian. He said he left Syria because of the poor economy.

"I would indeed love to go to America," he said, to join relatives in Detroit.

Dahang abruptly added, however, that he would never try to cross into America illegally. He refused to let his photo be taken and ended the interview.

A block and a half away, 42-year-old Imad Aorill worked in an electronics shop owned by a Jordanian man. Aorill had just arrived from Baghdad with his wife and two children, Iraqi Christians who fled Islamic extremist death threats.

In Amman, Jordan, he paid a man $200 to get his family visas to Guatemala. Then with financial help from a cousin in Chicago, the family flew the same route Boles took — from Damascus to Moscow, then Cuba and finally Guatemala City.

Aorill said his "ultimate dream" is to get his family to America, but he said he could not afford the $40,000 smuggling fee estimates he's been getting for having young children. Until he figures things out, he'll stay.

Amar Radi, secretary of the Arab Community of Guatemala, acknowledged the steady traffic of Middle Easterners.

"Many Arabs come here and work a while, get the money and then go to the U.S.," Radi said.

But he points out that no terrorist who is part of a well-heeled organization would do it this way. People with money, presumably including terrorists well-funded by organizations back home, leave Guatemala as soon as possible.

Still, rich and poor alike must travel the same routes over the Mexican border.

A buffet of routes

By January 2006, Boles was ready to leave the country. Through friends of friends he found a Guatemalan native assembling a load of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans for a run to the U.S. He agreed to cut Boles a special deal. For a mere $250, Boles could tag along with the group as far as the Mexican border, a four- or five-hour drive away.

Then he'd be on his own in Mexico. Early one morning, Boles joined the half-dozen or so other migrants in the courtyard of a house on the outskirts of Guatemala City. They piled into two cars and headed for the border.

The boundary between Guatemala and Mexico is part undifferentiated land with few markers and part the Rio Suchiate, which empties west into the Pacific.

This border — and the smuggling channels that traverse it — are a significant concern, according to newly released U.S. State Department Country Report that assesses counterterrorism efforts in Mexico during 2006.

"The southern border, in particular, could be vulnerable to the movement of terrorists," the report states.

One of the most popular places to cross into Mexico is the Suchiate, where the uninspected movement of people and goods between the two countries is openly tolerated. Under an international bridge between the Mexican town of Ciudad Hidalgo and the Guatemalan town of Tecun Uman, traffic moves back and forth on flotillas made of giant tire inner tubes, their pilots grunting as they push their loads around using long poles.

Boles would not cross here with his group. But other Middle Easterners have, including a dozen California-bound Iraqis in 2003. According to ICE documents, all 12 had obtained fraudulent Greek passports in Turkey with the help of a smuggler they each paid up to $8,000, including $1,300 for the bogus passports. Then they made their way by train or bus to Madrid, Spain, where they caught flights to Colombia.

From Colombia, the Turkish smuggler helped them use their fake passports to catch flights to Guatemala City, where the larger group split into smaller ones for a land run to Mexico. They crossed at Tecun Uman.

A typical dual-tube raft can carry 12 people and hundreds of pounds of trade goods. The camaristas, or boatmen, say they don't ask questions or pay much attention to whom they ferry across.

But camarista Teofilo Lopez said he can't help but notice some of them if it's obvious they're from a faraway country, like the "bearded Arab wearing like a blue sheet" a few days earlier who spoke not a word.

"Here we don't ask questions. We just take their money and bring them over."

The only visible authority was a few Mexican army officers posted on their side of the river, wearing full battle garb and carrying automatic weapons. They said they didn't pay much attention, either.

Officer M. Monzon, cradling his weapon in his arms, said his only orders are to look for "explosives and detonators." For hours one recent day none of the soldiers bothered to search any of the boat traffic.

On the Guatemala side of the river in Tecun Uman, Father P. Ademar Barillis directs a Catholic church-based facility with a mission to help immigrants make it safely to America. Casa del Migrante sits just 200 yards from the river.

Barillis said most of the people he helps are Central Americans but also "Africans and Middle Easterners."

He scoffed when asked whether U.S. homeland security officials should worry that those he helps might be terrorists posing as immigrants.

"It's ridiculous. It's a ludicrous idea," he said. "Terrorists would surely find easier ways to get into the U.S. The whole issue of walls being built on the border and terror threats is a political issue, not a real issue."

There are other, lesser known, water routes from Guatemala to Mexico.

At the westernmost point where Guatemala and Mexico meet is a vast watery veld of beach and river known as the Hook, where the Rio Suchiate spreads out into the Pacific. Here speedboats loaded with migrant passengers zip around from Guatemalan shores and land almost every night, locals around the beaches confirm.

Until the state of Chiapas deployed a 92-member border police force to the area in December, the smugglers would deliver their passengers in broad daylight. Now the boats run at night.

Police and immigration officers elsewhere along the Guatemala side of the border are not exactly motivated to shut down the traffic and worry about terrorism. They're collecting cash tolls from busloads of the migrants.

Boles and his Central American compatriots would cross near the Guatemala town of La Mesilla, known as a current favorite among smugglers — and predatory police. Two bus drivers told of what happens daily to their loads of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans as they approach La Mesilla.

Ronaldo Gomez, sitting in the driver's seat of his bus, explained that Guatemalan state police pulled his bus over a few miles from La Mesilla one day recently and ordered all the foreigners to hand over 100 quetzals each, the equivalent of about $7. Then they were allowed to continue on their bus trip to the Mexican border.

"It happens every day, every single day," Gomez said. "If you're able to pay your way, or talk your way, you can cross the border."

Like most Mexico-bound immigrants, Boles was driven along a dirt road that split from the main highway to town, beyond the sight of customs officers manning the port of entry.

They walked across the border. A waiting car picked up the group and drove back around to the main highway on the Mexican side of the border and headed into Ciudad Cuauhtemoc. At the bus station, Boles bought a ticket to Tapachula and got on with mostly Central Americans.

Not once during the 9,000 miles of travel — from Damascus to Moscow to Havana to Guatemala — had Boles encountered America's post-9-11 fear of terrorist infiltrators.

That was about to change.

In Mexico, U.S. counterterrorism authorities have found a much more willing partner.

Within hours of boarding the bus, Boles would feel for the first time the heat of America's obsession with security.

tbensman@express-news.net
News Researcher Julie Domel contributed to this report.


How this series was reported

To document the hidden world of special-interest aliens, San Antonio Express-News reporter Todd Bensman and photographer Jerry Lara traveled to Damascus, Syria; Amman, Jordan; throughout Guatemala; the southern border state of Chiapas, Mexico; Brownsville and elsewhere along the Texas border; and Michigan. Bensman documented routes used by smugglers to move immigrants from Islamic countries, including a popular one from Syria to Texas traveled by Iraqi refugee Aamr Bahnan Boles.

The Express-News hired Arabic language interpreters in Syria, Jordan and Texas, where Boles was first interviewed extensively. Bensman obtained materials from overseas smuggling investigations and hundreds of daily intelligence summaries reflecting Texas border crossings. He interviewed U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials in both countries, and examined U.S. court records from a dozen federal smuggling prosecutions. Some dialogue and scenes described in this series were reconstructed based on interviews with Boles and, when possible, others who were present.

Breaching America, Part I: War refugees or threats?



Web Posted: 05/20/2007 12:51 AM CDT

Todd Bensman
San Antonio Express-News

First part of a four-part series

DAMASCUS, Syria — Al Nawateer restaurant is a place where dreams are bartered and secrets are kept.

Dining areas partitioned by thickets of crawling vines and knee-high concrete fountains offer privacy from informants and agents of the Mukhabarat secret police.

The Mukhabarat try to monitor the hundreds of thousands of Iraq war refugees in this ancient city, where clandestine human smuggling rings have sprung up to help refugees move on — often to the United States.

But the refugees who frequent Al Nawateer, gathering around Table 75 or sitting alone in a corner, are undaunted, willing to risk everything to meet a smuggler. They come to be solicited by someone who, for the right price, will help them obtain visas from the sometimes bribery-greased consulates of nations adversarial or indifferent to American security concerns.

The deals cut at places like Al Nawateer could affect you. Americans from San Antonio to Detroit might find themselves living among immigrants from Islamic countries who have come to America with darker pursuits than escaping war or starting a new life.

U.S.-bound illicit travel from Islamic countries, which started long before 9-11 and includes some reputed terrorists, has gained momentum and worried counterterrorism officials as smugglers exploit 2 million Iraq war refugees. The irony is that the war America started to make itself safer has forced more people regarded as security threats toward its borders.

A stark reminder of U.S. vulnerability at home came this month when six foreign-born Muslims, three of whom had entered the country illegally, were arrested and accused of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix in New Jersey.

What might have happened there is sure to stoke the debate in Congress, which this week will take up border security and immigration reform. But the Iraqi refugee problem provides a twist on the question of what assurances America owes itself in uncertain times: What do we owe Iraqis thrown into chaos by the war?

Politically, immigration can be a faceless issue. But beyond the rhetoric, the lives of real people hang in the balance. A relatively small but politically significant number are from Islamic countries, raising the specter, some officials say, of terrorists at the gate.

For those few, the long journey to America starts at places like Al Nawateer.

The restaurant's reputation as a meeting place is what drew Aamr Bahnan Boles.

Night after night, Boles, a lanky 24-year-old, sat alone eating grilled chicken and tabouli in shadows cast by Al Nawateer's profusion of hanging lanterns. Boles always came packing the $5,000 stake his father had given him when he fled Iraq.

Boles was ordering his meal after another backbreaking day working a steam iron at one of the area's many basement-level garment shops when he noticed a Syrian man loitering near his table. The Syrian appeared to be listening intently. He was of average build and wearing a collared shirt. Boles guessed he was about 35 years old.

When the waiter walked away, the Syrian approached Boles, leaned over the cheap plastic table and spoke softly. He introduced himself as Abu Nabil, a common street nickname revealing nothing.

"I noticed your accent," the Syrian said politely. "Are you from Iraq?"

Boles nodded.

"I could help you if you want to leave," the Syrian said. "Just tell me when and where. I can get you wherever you want to go."

For an instant, Boles hesitated. Was the Syrian a Mukhabarat agent plotting to take his money and send him back to Iraq? Was he a con artist who would deliver nothing in return for a man's money?

"I want to go to the USA," Boles blurted.

"It can be done," said the Syrian. But it wouldn't be cheap, he warned. The cost might be as high as $10,000.

Hedging against a con, Boles said he didn't have that kind of money.

The Syrian told him there was a bargain-basement way of getting to America. For $750, he could get Boles a visitor's visa from the government of Guatemala in neighboring Jordan.

"After that you're on your own," the Syrian said. "But it's easy. You fly to Moscow, then Cuba and from there to Guatemala."

The implication was obvious. The Syrian would help Boles get within striking distance of the U.S. border. The rest was up to him.

Boles knew it wouldn't be easy or quick. Not until a year later, in fact, in the darkness just before dawn on April 29, 2006, would he finally swim across the Rio Grande on an inner tube and clamber up the Texas riverbank 40 miles west of Brownsville.

But Boles was undaunted. He cut a deal with the Syrian, setting in motion a journey into the vortex of a little-known American strategy in the war on terror: stopping people like him from stealing over the border.

River of immigrants

Near the tiny Texas community of Los Indios, the Rio Grande is deep, placid and seemingly of little consequence.

But its northern bank is rigged with motion sensors that U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor closely, swarming whenever the sensors are tripped.

Here and all along the river, an abstract concept becomes real. America's border with Mexico isn't simply a political issue or security concern. It is a living body of water, surprisingly narrow, with one nation abutting its greenish-brown waters from the north and another from the south.

Since 9-11, the U.S. government has made guarding the 1,952-mile Mexican border a top priority. One million undocumented immigrants are caught each year trying to cross the southern and northern U.S. borders.

Because all but a tiny fraction of those arrested crossing the southern border are Mexican or Central American, issues of border security get framed accordingly and cast in the image of America's neighbors to the south. Right or wrong, in this country the public face of illegal immigration has Latino features.

But there are others coming across the Rio Grande, and many are in Boles' image.

People from 43 so-called "countries of interest" in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa are sneaking into the United States, many by way of Texas, forming a human pipeline that exists largely outside the public consciousness but that has worried counterterrorism authorities since 9-11.

These immigrants are known as "special-interest aliens." When caught, they can be subjected to FBI interrogation, detention holds that can last for months and, in rare instances, federal prison terms.

The perceived danger is that they can evade being screened through terror-watch lists.

The 43 countries of interest are singled out because terrorist groups operate there. Special-interest immigrants are coming all the time, from countries where U.S. military personnel are battling radical Islamist movements, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Philippines. They come from countries where organized Islamic extremists have bombed U.S. interests, such as Kenya, Tanzania and Lebanon. They come from U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan.

And they come from Saudi Arabia, the nation that spawned most of the 9-11 hijackers.

Iraq war refugees, trapped in neighboring countries with no way out, are finding their way into the pipeline.

Zigzagging wildly across the globe on their own or more often with well-paid smugglers, their disparate routes determined by the availability of bogus travel documents and relative laxity of customs-enforcement practices, special-interest immigrants often converge in Latin America.

And, there, a northward flow begins.

Paterno to require community service from entire team

Posted on Tue, May. 22, 2007
By Joe Juliano
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer



Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, angered by recent arrests, said the Nittany Lions would "clean out the stadium every Sunday after every home game."

Angered by the arrest of six of his players in connection with a fight at an off-campus apartment, Joe Paterno will be disciplining his entire Penn State football team - for the entire season.

Speaking yesterday before a university alumni function in Valley Forge, Paterno said he was going to require all his players to perform community service.

Paterno said his players were "going to clean out the stadium every Sunday after every home game." He also said the Nittany Lions would work with the Special Olympics and build a home in Centre County through Habitat for Humanity.

He added that the players would turn their pay for cleaning up Beaver Stadium over to the university's club sports, whose participants usually perform the work to raise money for their teams.

"We had kids involved in something that was embarrassing and I think we ought to prove to people that we're not a bunch of hoodlums," the 80-year-old coach said at a news conference.

"Obviously, I'm probably going to have to keep one or two of them out of a game and drop one or two on the depth chart," he said. "And then whatever [university officials] think they have to do, they do. I want to do something where the whole team kind of says, 'Hey, we're all wrong, let's go.' "

State College police arrested six of Paterno's players, including defensive backfield starters Anthony Scirrotto and Justin King, on April 27, almost four weeks after a brawl at an off-campus apartment. A judge has since dropped charges against four of the players, including King, but Scirrotto, an all-Big Ten safety from West Deptford, and defensive tackle Chris Baker will stand trial.

Police said Scirrotto and a woman got into an argument on the street with passers-by who insulted the woman and punched Scirrotto. The player first summoned friends and then his teammates, who met him at the apartment where they knew the passers-by were, and a brawl ensued, authorities said.

Paterno said he had spoken with Scirrotto and heard his side of the story, but the veteran coach expressed disappointment that none of the players took a leadership role to avoid trouble.

"I was more upset with the kids that could have said, 'Hey, come on, knock this off. We don't need this,' " Paterno said. "I think that bothers me some. I'd be dishonest if I told you otherwise. But a major problem? I don't know.

"Maybe we'll learn from it. Sometimes I think kids don't quite understand what you mean by leadership. These are the kind of circumstances where a couple of strong kids could have said, 'This is ridiculous,' because it was. A couple of kids went in there and a couple of punches were thrown. I don't condone it. Our guys were wrong."

Paterno added, however, that he hoped the players would get a fair shake in the university's justice system.

"I just hope people don't overreact to it, because if it was another bunch of kids and these weren't football players, nobody would know what happened," he said. "I just hope everybody has some responsibility and says, 'Hey, let's look at this without making it a media event.'

"I think there are some things that should be done to a couple of kids - but what, I think I'll leave that to other people. But I know what I'm going to do. The ones I know about are going to have to do some things."

Paterno did not elaborate.

The veteran coach said he was feeling fine after a sideline accident in November left him with a broken left leg. He recently walked about 55 minutes and felt sore, but Paterno said he wanted to work his way up to longer walks.

He admitted that he might be "a little bit apprehensive" about standing on the sideline this season. Paterno said that during spring practice, he was speaking to a player and another player grabbed him and got him out of the way of a punting drill just in time.

Paterno also said he would not have a problem if Penn State revealed his salary, something the university is fighting in court in response to a suit asking that Penn State be required to disclose salaries as a state-related university.

"I don't care whether they release it or don't release it - I really don't," Paterno said.

"I don't care if you find out I make five, six million bucks a year," he said in jest. "That's fine. Putting up with you [reporters], I deserve it."

Paterno also said he felt sad for junior offensive lineman Elijah Robinson, a graduate of Woodrow Wilson High School in Camden who suffered a neck injury during spring practice. Robinson was advised by doctors to stop playing because of a defect that might result in paralysis if he took a hit to the head.

"It's tough because he was a really good prospect, great kid, solid student," the coach said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lions in Spring

Here's why the Penn State football team is making news in May:

Safety Anthony Scirrotto and defensive tackle Chris Baker are facing assault charges related to an off-campus fight.

The state Supreme Court is considering whether to make coach Joe Paterno's salary a matter of public record.


Contact staff writer Joe Juliano
at 215-854-4494 or jjuliano@phillynews.com.

Mike Lupica: His Credibility is Going, Going, Going...


NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, May 23rd 2007, 9:07 AM


BOSTON - The big quote from Jason Giambi last week in USA Today, where he talked about steroids without talking about them, where he said he was wrong to use that "stuff," turns out to be the one about drug testing.

"I'm probably tested more than anybody else," Giambi said. And the question you had to ask when you read that quote was a simple one:

Why?

Why would Jason Giambi be subject to more random testing than anybody else?

Now we know why.

Baseball did not have the right to pick on Giambi just because he testified - and quite honestly, from everything we know - in front of the BALCO grand jury. There is no place in the new drug agreement where you get dragged out of line because the government asked you questions and you answered them.

According to baseball's drug policy, unless he tested positive for steroids, which would have been made public, the only way Giambi could be subject to more testing than anybody else, six additional tests per year, is if he tested positive for amphetamines. Your name does not go into the paper for one positive test, unless you get found out the way Giambi gets found out now. You do not get suspended for the first one. Strike one, but six additional tests.

If it had been a positive for steroids, everybody in baseball would have known, the commissioner's office and the Players Association and the New York Yankees. And Giambi would have been suspended. There is no positive test for steroids on Giambi, for that "stuff" he lectured baseball about in the newspaper last week, as if he were the one honest man in the whole sport.

What he really seemed to be saying in that article is that everybody in the whole sport should apologize for the things ballplayers were taking to get better and stronger in the days before baseball had an actual drug policy. But now you have to say that if somebody was still taking a banned substance and getting caught for that after a drug policy was in place is a hypocrite at best, somebody who doesn't get to lecture anybody about anything when it comes to drugs and baseball.

Giambi has refused to talk about the USA Today story for days now, clearly on advice of his counsel. When Giambi's agent, Arn Tellem, was asked by The News' T.J. Quinn about a positive test on Giambi for amphetamines, he first responded with a line about a "ridiculous" accusation and later said that he had no comment. Twice Giambi was asked by the Daily News about a positive test, and both times said he wasn't going to address this subject. Maybe it will come up when he meets with commissioner Bud Selig as early as this week and has what has a chance to be a wide-ranging conversation about "stuff."

There is always the general thought in baseball that amphetamines should be some sort of misdemeanor, just because "greenies" were a part of the sport's backroom culture, with a wink and a nod, for so long. But they are no longer. Amphetamines, and other similar stimulants, are classified by the DEA as Schedule 2 drugs. Steroids are Schedule 3. Banned substances both.
Maybe all the players who have gotten caught so far with a positive test still think that picking out which drugs are acceptable and which aren't is like moving along a buffet table. It doesn't work that way anymore.

Maybe in Giambi's mind, even substances now against the baseball law are still baseball's fault and not the player's fault. If that is the case, it is a definition of crime and punishment when it comes to drugs in baseball in which no user is ever really at fault.

Giambi also told USA Today last week that the "stuff" he says he took didn't help him hit home runs. Maybe so, and maybe it is just one of those nutty coincidences you get in sports and life sometimes that home runs in baseball are going down the way they are.

Maybe Giambi will flatly deny this today, discuss it today after saying for two straight days that he didn't want to discuss it. Maybe the Yankees will continue, in back-channel ways, to try to get out from under the last of Giambi's $120 million contract, which has this season and next season to run.

Or maybe he will start hitting again, the way he has in the past.

He started this with his own words this time. Talking about "stuff." Saying that he, Jason Giambi, got tested more than anybody else. For a long time he didn't say enough and then he said too much, and now he keeps moving up on the last great battleground for his sport:
The guaranteed contract.

For such a long time, in what became the steroid era of the sport, nobody on the players' side seemed particularly interested in the integrity of the game, just the integrity of the money coming in. Drug testing was supposed to be a great battleground and then the Players Association got backed into a corner on that one five years ago and had no choice. Now there is drug testing, for some more than others, apparently. And the battleground could become the sanctity and strength of contracts like Giambi's.

Always those contracts were supposed to be stronger than ballplayers wanted to become. Before long, we might find out if those contracts are made of the same strong stuff guys like Giambi, and his agent, and his union, always thought they were.

Related Articles
Giambi is unsafe at any speed

Thomas Sowell: The Amnesty Fraud: Part II

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa marches during an immigration rally in Los Angeles May 17, 2007. The rally was held as a response to the Los Angeles Police Department's action at a May 1st rally, when they used force to disperse the crowd. A deal between leading senators would grant millions of undocumented immigrants lawful status, but other reform advocates warned any celebration was premature. Picture taken May 17, 2007.


http://www.townhall.com
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it.

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs.

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading.

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job.

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian?

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?


Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Thomas Sowell: The Amnesty Fraud

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., center, accompanied by Sen. Jeff Session, R-Ala., left, and Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., right, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 21, 2007, to discuss immigration reform legislation.

http://www.townhall.com
Tuesday, May 22, 2007


Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.

The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.

Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?

We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?

Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.

Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.

The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.

For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.

But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?

Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?

Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.

All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.

Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.


Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Jeff Jacoby: Look in the mirror, Jimmy Carter


Boston Globe

May 23, 2007

GRACIOUS AS EVER, Jimmy Carter says that when it comes to international relations, the presidency of George W. Bush has set an all-time low. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette last week, "this administration has been the worst in history."

Former presidents don't usually insult their successors quite so overtly, and Carter's slur, not surprisingly, drew international attention. Whereupon he claimed that his remarks had been "maybe careless or misinterpreted" and insisted: "I was certainly not talking personally about any president." No, of course not.

If "Pot Calling a Kettle Black" were a category in the Guinness Book of World Records, Carter would be a shoo-in for the upcoming edition. History's ultimate judgment on Bush may not be known for some time, but its verdict on Carter, who vacated the White House 26 years ago, seems clear enough. And that verdict is: Well, let's just say he would be well advised not to toss around phrases such as "worst in history" when the conversation turns to presidential performance.

Christopher Hitchens this week recalled arguing with Eugene McCarthy, a lifelong liberal who had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. McCarthy was unapologetic. Carter, he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

The worst of the 20th century, at any rate. During the Carter years, America's international standing went into freefall. The 39th president entered the White House as the tide in the Cold War was turning in the Soviet Union's favor. Vietnam and Cambodia had fallen to the communists, and Marxist governments had seized power in Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia as well. Yet the new president went out of his way to dismiss principled anticommunism as foolish paranoia: "We are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear," he said 30 years ago this week. Instead of acting forcefully to block any further expansion of communist power, Carter sought to appease it.

Before long, he was slashing billions of dollars from the defense budget, cancelling the B-1 bomber program, and ordering US missiles removed from South Korea. He welcomed the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua and provided the junta with $90 million in aid. He initiated diplomatic relations with Fidel Castro's dictatorship, unperturbed by the thousands of Cuban troops fighting with Marxist forces in Africa. As Moscow engaged in a vast military buildup and cultivated an international network of terrorists, the Carter administration sliced hundreds of intelligence positions at the CIA.

Not until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan did the scales finally fall from Carter's eyes. Moscow's naked aggression, he said, "made a more dramatic change in my opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are than anything they've done in the previous time I've been in office."



Toward those who warned that American weakness was dangerously provocative, Carter was scornful -- "simplistic," he said of Reagan in October 1980, "jingoistic . . . shooting from the hip." Toward tyrants and goons, on the other hand, he was creepily unctuous. "A great and courageous leader" who "believes in human rights" was Carter's description of Yugoslav dictator Marshal Tito. To Romania's brutal Nicolae Ceausescu, the president fawned : "Our goals are the same . . . to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom . . . in enhancing human rights." His sycophancy in the face of malevolence was memorably captured in photographs that showed him kissing Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev in 1979, a few months before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Worse yet was the administration's supine response to the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran later the same year. When Carter hinted that he might use military force to end the crisis and free the 52 US diplomats being held in captivity, he was mocked by the Ayatollah Khomeini. "He is beating on an empty drum," Khomeini sneered. "Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

The fruits of Carter's spinelessness, says scholar Steven Hayward, have been bitter. The fall of Iran, he observes, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11." By doing nothing to prevent the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter invited an evil from which grew the jihadist violence that is such a menace today.

It took Americans only four years to realize what a disaster Carter had been; they booted him out in 1980 by a 44-state landslide. "The worst in history," he says of Bush. Look who's talking.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Jack Dunphy: The Truth About Who Suffers


And about who inflicts the suffering.

http://www.nationalreview.com

April 11, 2007, 7:35 a.m.

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom


It may seem like ancient history now, but it was only a year ago that we were first subjected to the media circus that was the so-called and now-dropped Duke Rape Case. For months thereafter, you couldn’t pick up a newspaper or turn on the television or radio without learning some new tidbit about the accused lacrosse players, even as their accuser remained shrouded in mystery. Today we know there was no rape and now not even a case at all, but even in those early days it was apparent enough that there were glaring problems with the accuser’s story (or, as it happened, stories). But not even those problems prevented the case from consuming the attention of the sages in our national media, whose foot soldiers decamped from New York and Los Angeles and such places to descend on Durham, North Carolina, as quickly as they could find it on the map.

The case was simply irresistible to our sophisticated betters in Manhattan and the tonier zip codes of southern California. The “victim” was black and a single mother, each in itself a shield against criticism, but taken together an impregnable defense against any judgment of her own behavior and motives. Furthermore, she claimed to have been attacked by a group of southern white elites, thus justifying the low opinion of such elites held by those who live within sight of the Pacific Ocean or the Hudson River. (Never mind that none of the accused were actually from the south.) Only when the evidence of the defendants’ innocence and of the prosecutor’s misconduct accumulated to an undeniable critical mass did the media slink off to await the next Big Story.

Compare the attention given the Duke case with that accorded a far more heinous crime, one whose victims have thus far failed to arouse the sympathies or even the notice of those who found so much enjoyment in their condemnation of the lacrosse players. Chances are, unless you live in Tennessee, you will not recognize the names Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Christian, 21, and Newsome, 23, both of Knoxville, were driving through that city together on the night of January 6 when they were kidnapped and murdered. Newsome’s burned body was found along some railroad tracks on January 7. Christian remained missing for two more days until her body, stuffed in a trash can, was found in a home not far from where Newsome’s was found. Police and prosecutors allege both victims were raped before being killed. Yes, both. Three men and a woman have been charged with the crimes in a 46-count grand jury indictment handed down in Knoxville on January 31.

The story was given a few brief mentions on the AP wire, which were in turn carried on the Fox News and ABC News websites, but you’ll find no mention of the crime in the online archives of CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Run a similar search for stories on the Duke case and you’ll be sifting through the results for hours. It’s not as though these news providers have shied away from crime since being embarrassed in the Duke case. For example, when Tara Grant went missing from her suburban Detroit home in February, the investigation grew and grew in media attention until it became a national story. An AP story appearing on the MSNBC website ran under the headline, “Mich. case a perfect recipe for media frenzy.” And indeed it was. When Grant’s dismembered body was discovered inside her home, triggering a manhunt for her husband and his eventual arrest, the coverage ramped up nearly to the point of Laci Peterson-type saturation. Only the carnival surrounding Anna Nichole Smith’s death kept the Grant murder from being the Story of the Month. Yet the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome are known to almost no one outside Tennessee. Why?

It’s simple: the four suspects accused of killing Christian and Newsome are blacks from the inner city of Knoxville.

Uh oh, we’re not supposed to talk about such things, are we. We’re careful to step ever so gingerly around issues of race and crime, except of course when there is an opportunity, as in the Duke case, to point to a group of privileged whites and say, “See? Look at how badly they’ve behaved! Look at how they treated that poor black single mother!” And in the Michigan case we can look down our noses at a prosperous suburban white family and say, “Look how screwed up they are!” A visitor from a foreign land might read the news and suspect America was plagued by rampaging hordes of collegiate lacrosse players and middle-aged suburbanites. And all the while the far more serious problem of violent crime among minorities in our inner cities is almost completely ignored.

To even broach the topic of inner city crime is almost a social taboo, rather like discussing the bride’s old boyfriends at a wedding reception. But the figures, as they say, do not lie, and we do no one a service by trying to ignore them. Here in Los Angeles, for example, there were 481 murders investigated by the LAPD in 2006, but almost half of them occurred among the 18 percent of the city’s population living in South and South-Central L.A. These areas are almost exclusively black and Latino.

Looking at the numbers more closely, blacks are about 11 percent of the city’s population, but in 2006 they were 36 percent of its murder victims and 40 percent of its known murder suspects. Latinos make up 46 percent of the city’s total population and were about half of its murder victims and suspects. Whites are about 29 percent of the population in Los Angeles but last year were only 4 percent of the city’s murder victims and 2 percent of its known murder suspects.

To its credit, the Los Angeles Times has begun bringing some small measure of attention to these disturbing numbers in the form of its new online feature, the Homicide Report, which tracks every murder occurring in Los Angeles County and includes information on each victim’s race. The inclusion of this information has been criticized in some quarters, and the Times’s response to this criticism deserves quoting at length:

. . . The Homicide Report departs from this rule [against mentioning a victim’s race] in the interest of presenting the most complete and accurate demographic picture of who is at risk of dying from homicide in Los Angeles County. Race and ethnicity, like age and gender, are stark predictors of homicide risk. Blacks are vastly more likely to die from homicide than whites, and Latinos somewhat more likely. Black men, in particular, are extraordinarily vulnerable: They are 4% of this country's population, but, according to the Centers for Disease Control, they represented 35% of homicide victims nationally in 2004. Local numbers mirror these national disparities. According to an analysis for The Times by county health officials of homicide data between 1991 and 2002, Latino men ages 20 to 24 were five times more likely than white men the same age to die, and black men were 16 times more likely.

The Homicide Report recognizes the peril of dehumanizing victims by reducing their lives and deaths to a few scant facts — particularly racial designations which provide only the roughest markers of ancestry and history. But given the magnitude of difference in homicide risk along racial and ethnic lines — and the extremity of suffering which homicide inflicts on subsets of the population — we opt here to present information which lays bare racial and ethnic contours of the problem so conspicuous in the coroner's data. The goal is to promote understanding, and honor a basic journalistic principle: Tell the truth about who suffers . . .

Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald has pointed out the same type of stark disparities in writing about crime in New York City, but you can choose any city you like and find a similarly alarming set of figures. In the time Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and all the lesser voices in the Choir of the Perpetually Outraged have spent bellowing about the rantings of an aging radio gasbag, how many young black men have been busying themselves killing each other?

Only when the true magnitude of this problem is acknowledged can its solutions be identified and implemented. It will come too late for Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, of course, but in at last daring to report the grim but persistent truth in these statistics, perhaps the Los Angeles Times has opened a door through which the remedy to inner-city crime is found.

Click on link below for further coverage of the Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom murders

http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Bob Klapisch: Bombers taking it one day at a time

Bergen County Record

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

NEW YORK -- The goal is to play nine clean innings at a time, which is to say, keep away from the monstrous numbers that still haunt the Yankees. Ignore the doomsday scenario, is what the corporate plan now says. Instead, the Yankees are reducing their world to one game, one win, one series at a time.

It might be a desperate way to cope with a double-digit deficit in the East. But hands on their hearts, the Yankees insist they're not finished yet.



Johnny Damon singles to lead off the game.

Exhibit A was Chien-Ming Wang's sinker, which effectively smothered the Red Sox in a 6-2 victory at the Stadium. It wasn't Wang's best work of the season -- actually he was forced to use more sliders and change-ups than usual -- but the Yankee right-hander was better than Tim Wakefield, who allowed six runs in five innings, including home runs to Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi.

And so the mini-fantasy draws its first breath: Can the Yankees re-insert themselves into the race by sweeping the Sox? They have favorable pitching matchups in two of the three games, which is why Wang's triumph was so critical: It was a game the Yankees simply had to have.

Tonight, they have Mike Mussina against Julian Tavarez, another should-win, with Andy Pettitte facing Curt Schilling in the series finale on Wednesday. Pettitte cautioned against obsessing over a perfect 3-for-3, "That's a pretty good team you're talking about." But the math says the Yankees had better think that broadly.

Put it this way: If the Red Sox merely play .550 the rest of the way and end the season with 95 wins, the Yankees will have to play .650 to beat them. It's not impossible for the Bombers to reach 96 wins, but it's more likely they'll finish with 90-93 wins and hope that's good enough for the wild card.



Alex Rodriguez watches a home run in the first inning.

The only variable here is that, after Monday night's game, the Yankees still have 11 more chances against the Red Sox. In other words, the playoffs already are here. It's either the opportunity of a lifetime, or else the Yankees' season could be ruined beyond recognition.

It all depends on those 11 games.

"I know it's easy for fans to think 'if [the Yankees] win all those games, we're back in it' but that's not realistic," Pettitte was saying before batting practice on Monday. "To me, it comes down to series. We don't have to sweep them, just take the series. And then we win another series and another and another. And somewhere along the line, we get some help [against the Red Sox] from the rest of the league, and they start to lose some series, too."

For this formula to work, the Yankees have to succeed on several levels, including their offense. Most notably, they need a significant contribution from all three outfielders, since it's hard to imagine Derek Jeter (.365) and Jorge Posada (.374) staving off a cooling off period for too much longer.

Bobby Abreu, in particular, is facing closer scrutiny from the front office, not to mention the Stadium crowd that booed him every time he made an out on Monday. The party line is that Abreu's problems are mechanical – he's pulling off the ball – but general manager Brian Cashman has been aggressively questioned by George Steinbrenner for failing to project the right fielder's decline this year.



Chien-Ming Wang follows through on a pitch in the first inning.


Cashman passionately has defended his decision to acquire Abreu from the Phillies last year, telling The Boss he was satisfied overall with the '07 roster. As the executive said at Shea over the weekend, "There isn't a general manager in baseball who wouldn't want to have our offense, with Wang, Pettitte and Mussina in the starting rotation with [Roger] Clemens coming and [Mariano] Rivera closing games.

"I still believe we have enough to win this thing," Cashman said. "We haven't played well, but I have faith in the team I've put together."

From here to October, all the little things will have an end-of-the-world feel to them. Like the miniature crisis that Wang left to the bullpen in the seventh. With one out, the Yankee right-hander walked Julio Lugo, and then allowed Kevin Youkilis to thunder a double to left.

With runners on second and third, Torre started that million-mile walk to the mound. Everyone in the ballpark took a deep breath in anticipation of the matchups that were taking shape -- Mike Myers against David Ortiz and Brian Bruney against Manny Ramirez. The unanswered question was whether the battered Yankee relief corps could be trusted with a five-run lead.



Jason Giambi strokes a solo home run in the second inning.

It's no stretch to imagine Torre crossing his fingers (tightly) as he handed the ball to Myers, who was pounded by the Mets for four runs and five hits in just two innings on Saturday. But Myers' assignment was more finite on Monday: he had one batter to worry about and ultimately, one outcome to guard against. Myers could not let Ortiz take him deep.

Turns out the damage was minimal, as Ortiz lifted a harmless sacrifice fly to left, after which Bruney got Ramirez to look at strike three -- a fastball that cut the plate in half.

It may or may not have been a miracle, but in a season already littered by bad baseball, the Yankees weren't complaining. In fact, their hearts might've just taken off on a silent sprint.